Yes. I support death penalty for such case. In Singapore, death penalty is automatically given to drug dealers and I think it's good. I simply have no sympathy for criminals, period. Society is so much better without those trash.

How do you judge what constitutes a criminal that is just "trash?"

According to you, someone who robs or steals deserves the death penalty because they are criminals and "trash." What if a man was in such a condition that he had no choice but to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family (see Hugo's Les Miserables) - he may have broken the law and may be tried as a criminal, but is he somehow "trash" that deserves to die? I highly doubt that. Your viewpoint takes on a very slippery slope that will not end well morally or ethically.

Again, like the LOTR quote Cesare posted - there are many who deserve to die, and many who deserve to live. But can another human being truly deal out life and death to another, even in the supposed name of justice? I sincerely hope not.

I also want to say that about criminals that claim to show remorse and leniency, they can just be putting on an act so that people will give them some mercy. But who really knows deep down if they are truly sorry for what they did?? A lot of criminals are good at acting...

Exactly.
Criminals can remorse all they want but the punishment they get should be the same. No mercy for them.

Yes. I support death penalty for such case. In Singapore, death penalty is automatically given to drug dealers and I think it's good. I simply have no sympathy for criminals, period. Society is so much better without those trash.

i agree with Jaded again here. Criminals are humans, too. Sometimes they have no choice. Poor neighbourhoods have high crime rate. So to save the taxpayers money why don't we just exterminate the whole neighbourhood, put them all on deathrow, huh? Prostitution is illegal. why don't we just kill all the prostitutes?

That is the price the murderers should pay for their crimes. If you don't punish the murderers, where is justice for the victims? Society would be in chaos if criminals don't get the harsh punishment for the crime they committed. Do you want to live in lawless society where criminals like sudan where criminals can do what ever they want?

Revenge and lust for blood do not mean justice, though many will disguise it as such.
I never said don't punish murderers - I said that I am against capital punishment. There are plenty of harsh punishments given to criminals that do not involve death. No capital punishment does not mean that the society will be lawless.
You live in Canada too, don't you? You should be familiar with our justice system (it does not involve the capital punishment, yet Canada is a much safer country to live in than many countries that DO have capital punishment). We are nowhere in chaos or in a place where criminals "do as they please."

Originally Posted by Trien Chieu

These people care about the lives of the innocent people, not the lives of murderers. If you got it your way, we will go back to the dark age.

Again, no human being, in my opinion, if fit to judge the worth of another. I never said that we shouldn't care about the innocent people who were hurt - it is because we do care that we have a justice system to begin with. But does caring for innocent lives necessarily need to involve taking the life of another terrible person, who is still a human being? No.

And using Canada as an example again, we are nowhere near the dark ages.

According to you, someone who robs or steals deserves the death penalty because they are criminals and "trash." What if a man was in such a condition that he had no choice but to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family (see Hugo's Les Miserables) - he may have broken the law and may be tried as a criminal, but is he somehow "trash" that deserves to die? I highly doubt that. Your viewpoint takes on a very slippery slope that will not end well morally or ethically.

When did I say petty criminals such as stealing a loaf of bread deserve death penalty? What I was talking about are murderers, robbers, drug dealers, ect., a crime that would get death penalty by the law of the land. There is something called food bank and welfare if the family is in such harsh circumstance.

Again, like the LOTR quote Cesare posted - there are many who deserve to die, and many who deserve to live. But can another human being truly deal out life and death to another, even in the supposed name of justice? I sincerely hope not.

Hm...this is a very hard topic to debate... I would support the death penalty depending on the circumstances and situation. IN this case, I am not too sure... I think I would sound like a cruel person if I said that Petric deserved the death penalty. But then again, he did NOT just kill anyone. He killed his own mother!! The one that gave life to him, took care of him and sacrificed sooo much for him. For all that she did for him, she just gets a shot to the head?? I can't believe that... How can he live with himself after killing his own mother??? If it were me, I would not even want to live on the face of this earth anymore...I really hate and despise unfilial kids...

Firstly, just to set things clear - I am just appalled at this kid as anyone. I never understood how people can just hurt they ones they love or those who love them, be it an idiot kid like this one killing his mom or those abusive parents who kill their own children.

But the things here is - he was wrong in killing. It didn't matter who the victim was. Yes, sentimentally it shocks people more if it was someone in the family - but it wouldn't have made a difference if he killed a friend who took the game away from him. He was wrong to kill. It extremely unfortunate and sad that the victim happened to be his own mother, but it would have been just as sad if the victim was a friend, or even a stranger.

Originally Posted by Trinie

I also want to say that about criminals that claim to show remorse and leniency, they can just be putting on an act so that people will give them some mercy. But who really knows deep down if they are truly sorry for what they did?? A lot of criminals are good at acting...

Going back to the original topic - I agree. It is very hard to know if someone is truly remorseful. That's why I am for keeping the originally intended sentence that a crime received that was deemed as fit by the jury (that doesn't involve capital punishment).

When did I say petty criminals such as stealing a loaf of bread deserve death penalty? What I was talking about murderers, robbers, drug dealers, ect., a crime that would get death penalty by the law of the land. There is something called food bank and welfare if the family is in such harsh circumstance.

You see, you originally said that you have no sympathy for criminals and that society would be better without these "trash." A thief is still a criminal. I was merely pointing out the dangerous slippery slope that you are on.

You see, you originally said that you have no sympathy for criminals and that society would be better without these "trash." A thief is still a criminal. I was merely pointing out the dangerous slippery slope that you are on.

It's in Cesare's first post in this thread.

I did not say thief is not a criminal but the punishment should fit the crime. As for hard core criminals, death penalty is way to go. Sometimes you have to kill a cat to teach a monkey a lesson.

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.

I think the author refered to extreme cases such as dictator like Kim Jon Il and some citizen of North Korea who was starved to death due to famine. I agree with that and that is the extreme case. However, for murderers, bank robbers and drug dealers, they deserve to die for the crime they committed.

I sometimes find it ironic that those who heavily condemn the murderers for their brutal crimes of taking a life have no problem dealing out the "death" penalty themselves. For me, I don't think that any human being (or panel of human beings) has the right to deal out life or death to another human being, even if that person is the lowliest scum on earth.

Only there is a sharp difference, and it seems like you are putting the murder victims and criminals in one lump and I think it's an insult to those who had their lives robbed away from them brutally.

The murdered are... well, murdered, and usually in very cold-blood.

The death penalty is a punishment. Since nobody should be killing anyone, the moment you kill someone means you've forfeited your right to live, just as how you stole someone's life. The only thing is, there need to be an authority around to be the executor, and the law does just that.

And ultimately, a murder is very different from a just punishment, and should not be lumped together.

Only there is a sharp difference, and it seems like you are putting the murder victims and criminals in one lump.

The murdered are... well, murdered, and usually in very cold-blood.

The death penalty is a punishment. Since nobody should be killing anyone, the moment you kill someone means you've forfeited your right to live, just as how you stole someone's life. The only thing is, there need to be an authority around to be the executor, and the law does just that.

I have only placed the victim and murderer into "one lump," in the sense that they are all human beings.

Never did I say that the murders are right in what they did - it's not right to take an innocent life, that's a given. It's not right to hurt another human being. I'm very well aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that clearly, there is a huge difference between a victim and a murderer.

I disagree with having the death penalty as a punishment, because even if the murderer has "forfeited their right to live," the law (which are human-made principles), in my opinion, still does not have the right to take the life of another, even if that person is a disgusting piece of scum. I suppose in the end, it comes down to my belief that no one has the right to take the life of another, and no one has the right to judge or deal out life and death to another. It is obviously wrong for a murderer to murder an innocent victim. But to me, it does not seem right for a group of people to assign death to the murderer either. Now that said, the murderer should definitely receive the harshest punishment there is that does not involve death. So in no way am I saying that a murderer should go unpunished, just that the death penalty should not be used as one.

If we really have to kill, I think it should be the death of the "customers". Some of the prostitutes may be victims themselves but not those customers who pay for their services.

That aside, the what and why are important in deciding the type of punishment. In some situation, death penalty should be imposed if it means more danger to the society by just letting the criminal stays in the prison for years and releasing him/her after serving the sentence. It will also add as a warning to other "potential" criminals.

Firstly, just to set things clear - I am just appalled at this kid as anyone. I never understood how people can just hurt they ones they love or those who love them, be it an idiot kid like this one killing his mom or those abusive parents who kill their own children.

But the things here is - he was wrong in killing. It didn't matter who the victim was. Yes, sentimentally it shocks people more if it was someone in the family - but it wouldn't have made a difference if he killed a friend who took the game away from him. He was wrong to kill. It extremely unfortunate and sad that the victim happened to be his own mother, but it would have been just as sad if the victim was a friend, or even a stranger.

Going back to the original topic - I agree. It is very hard to know if someone is truly remorseful. That's why I am for keeping the originally intended sentence that a crime received that was deemed as fit by the jury (that doesn't involve capital punishment).

In terms of “human beings,” yes, it doesn’t matter who is killed. It’s still “someone.” But, in real life we (people) have relationships of varying degrees of closeness with others. Killing someone you’re close to clearly takes more depravity than killing some stranger. Of course, in the case of abusive parents or something, there are exceptions.

“Justice” is only as the law defines it. Each person has his/her own view of what justice entails outside of the judicial system. Who’s to say executing someone for murder isn’t “justice”? In any event, I’d rather see a quick execution of inmates on death row after conviction. I don’t care whether it’s “justice” or not. To me, it is, but I’d rather save some taxpayer money feeding someone who took someone’s life in cold blood – and make no mistake, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous killers.

And by the way, for people who have never read my views on people who grow up in rough neighborhoods, I have argued with the likes of TC many times that sometimes criminals who come from impoverished backgrounds are victims of their environment – so I am not some Republican who favors frying criminals. But, coming from a poor background doesn’t justify murder. I can fully understand how someone may be driven to stealing or robbing in order to eat, but that does not justify cold blooded murder.

If we really have to kill, I think it should be the death of the "customers". Some of the prostitutes may be victims themselves but not those customers who pay for their services.

That aside, the what and why are important in deciding the type of punishment. In some situation, death penalty should be imposed if it means more danger to the society by just letting the criminal stays in the prison for years and releasing him/her after serving the sentence. It will also add as a warning to other "potential" criminals.

i'm sorry but i don't condone killing, espeically if its a non-murder crime. it goes against all codes of morality.

Whether there should be capital punishment and what type of crimes should capital punishment be an option for are two different questions.

On the first, I am unequivocally for. I am also for quick execution and eliminate or shorten the appeal process. On the second, I would reserve it for murderers and extreme violent offenders – e.g. attempted murder, assault with deadly weapon, etc. which left irreversible effects on the victim – paralysis, brain damage, etc.

I have a question for TC, so do you accept the death penalty for a woman who commits adultery? I am guessing yes since I remember you mentioning that before and how you always use ancient Chinese series as your back up. Also, you mention in one of your posts that if we get our way then we are going back to the ancient times. Can't you see that you are doing the same thing?? Remember to think closely about things before you say/ post about them because you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense.

Last edited by Trinie; 06-18-09 at 02:06 PM.

Respect other people's opinions and views. If we learn how to do that than all of these fights and arguments will not occur.

i'm sorry but i don't condone killing, espeically if its a non-murder crime. it goes against all codes of morality.

"Thou shall not kill"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I agree since if you did not commit a murder, then why should you have to die for it(unless it is something really serious like child abuse or something like that)? Also, what if someone is innocent and wrongly convicted of murder?? What if they get executed and then years later, we find out that they are innocent. However, they are now dead... How can the people who convicted him/her live with themselves???

Respect other people's opinions and views. If we learn how to do that than all of these fights and arguments will not occur.

I agree since if you did not commit a murder, then why should you have to die for it(unless it is something really serious like child abuse or something like that)? Also, what if someone is innocent and wrongly convicted of murder?? What if they get executed and then years later, we find out that they are innocent. However, they are now dead... How can the people who convicted him/her live with themselves???

Yup, that's my view point. The justice system is never perfect. There'll always be that 5% who have been wrongly accused and convicted. That would be pretty much like killing innocents.

Yup, that's my view point. The justice system is never perfect. There'll always be that 5% who have been wrongly accused and convicted. That would be pretty much like killing innocents.

Recently, I was watching America's Most Wanted and it reviewed a case about a man that was probably wrongly accused of killing his mom. He was sentenced to life in prison but now a lot of people are questioning his case and see how he was probably wrongly accused. Some lawyers are now working hard to get him out of prison. Luckily, he was not sentenced to death or else they would have killed an innocent person.

I am still in between the lines when it comes to the death penalty. I can support it in some cases, but not others. It is such a tough topic to debate....

Respect other people's opinions and views. If we learn how to do that than all of these fights and arguments will not occur.

Recently, I was watching America's Most Wanted and it reviewed a case about a man that was probably wrongly accused of killing his mom. He was sentenced to life in prison but now a lot of people are questioning his case and see how he was probably wrongly accused. Some lawyers are now working hard to get him out of prison. Luckily, he was not sentenced to death or else they would have killed an innocent person.

I am still in between the lines when it comes to the death penalty. I can support it in some cases, but not others. It is such a tough topic to debate....

I know US is predominately Christians so that's why lot of churches are against capital punishment. The main message being forgiveness.